- 0 Posts
- 78 Comments
They would have had to build that infrastructure. I’m not saying fundraising is easy. But it’s possible as proven by wikipedia. They could have cut Google loose 10 years ago and said "we’re going to use our runway to try to put together a wikimedia foundation style fundraising operation. I don’t think they can do it now because the trust, goodwill and quite frankly, userbase is gone.
What on earth would that do? The poisonous leadership would not use it to improve the browser nor would they start working for donors instead of Google.
My point is that there is a funding model that they could have pursued when they still had goodwill and trust. And my hope is if the government finally puts the boot in with Google, then this current version of mozilla will collapse, the rats will leave the ship and hopefully a good browser will emerge the way firefox emerged from netscape.
Mozilla could have focused on being user-supported through fundraising like Wikipedia. Instead they chose the comfortable path of being funded by their biggest competitor, who is an evil monopoly spyware ad business, which has been compelling Mozilla to kill Firefox and become the badies on the way down.
Man, I’m so glad this shit is illegal on multiple levels in Europe.
In other news: https://midwest.social/post/17142014
I quite frankly flat out do not understand why people on the left are so against space exploration suddenly
Ever heard the song “whitey on the moon?”
Setting that aside, exploring space is not the same thing as building a company town for the world’s least mentally stable pregnancy fetishist oligarch in an unworldly cold desert where everyone is sure to die.
Generative AI is just classification engines run in reverse. Classification engines are useful but they’ve been around and making incremental improvements for at least a decade. Also, just like self-driving cars they’ve been writing checks they can’t honor. For instance, legal coding and radiology were supposed to be automated by classification engines a long time ago.
As a leftist I think that transsexuals should not be discriminated against. I’m also highly disturbed by the idea of medicalizing everything and turning a sexual identity into an excuse for prescribing dangerous and harsh drugs and body modification surgery. The whole thing feels like an op by the for-profit healthcare industry.
The one big law about lending out digital copies of books you own is that you only lend out as many as you physically own.
That is not what the lawsuit is about, and that was not what the plaintiffs or the judge argued. Their argument is that if you can not take a physical copy and digitize it.
If you want a digital copy to lend, you must beg the publisher to allow you to have a digital copy to lend and you must accept their terms. If they don’t want to provide you with a digital lending option as a library, then you can not lend it. If they want to make you use their DRM software you must use it even if it spies on your patrons and charges you per-lending fees, or even “expires” the book after so many loans, or “blacks out” or “embargoes” lending of titles you are supposed to have in your catalog (these are all features of publisher-backed digital lending schemes).
This is depressing as hell and a statement about the time we live in and the corporate overlords who control our lives.
Jimmy McGee made a great video about it last year:
I wanna see Sam Altman reenact the “make it work” mirror scene from always sunny.
Pretty crazy to think that it is actually not sure whether spending less than 500k on a supercomputer is worth it.
Has more to do with the market for supercomputers. They are monsters to keep fed so it’s not a question of if you can buy it but rather if you can run it. But customers for supercomputers are in the market because they need the most raw power that the technology is capable of supplying, so buying and installing a decade old supercomputer (which is going to have the same operating costs at a lower capability than a new one) doesn’t make sense.
You also have to consider that the downtime’s going to be a lot higher on this equipment as you’re going to start having components hit the end of their useful life.
These are almost certainly saleried, exempt employees with no “timeclock”.
They were fired for expressing a political opinion and doing so in a way Google did not like.
It is certainly legal for Google to fire them for this because it is legal for Google to fire them for almost any reason. But it’s also pretty certian that there is no way in America to protest your employer in a way where the law would protect you from retaliation.
Hacker news is full of people LARPing as corporate crisis management officers, or counsels for the defense. Every post you get about “company caught grinding up babies to fuel forever-chemical cancer machine” will get a ton of posts by people arguing that actually it’s a net positive for the world and how could anyone be against such amazing innovation?
Unfortunately, then they can legally terminate you for refusal to work.
I don’t think they’re being fired for “refusal to work”. There is a concept of “job abandonment” but one 9 hour period wouldn’t count. Typically you need several days of no contact/no show before you have considered to have abandoned your job.
This is more about at-will employment: Google has a right to fire an employee at any time for almost any reason, or for no reason. There have been people getting fired for posting pro-Palestine content to linkedin, which is completely legal in the US.
This isn’t a story of “employees overstepped a line and got fired” this is a story of “there is no line, companies can fire employees for almost anything and definitely for their political views regardless how respectfully they are expressed.”
Also going on strike is basically the definition of “organized refusal to work”
This isn’t even remotely true. This is specifically what the DOJ is suing over: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39780312
I think OJ single handedly killed the Bronco as a car anyone with self-respect would own.
The image of that white Bronco rolling down the highway in the slow lane with a long procession of cop cars behind in second gear was one of the most iconic images of the 90s. You couldn’t have picked a worse getaway car.
I don’t think Jack Ryan would have won. Obama had already won a crowded and contentious democratic primary and was a really strong candidate. Ryan, on the other hand, wasn’t a very good candidate and was kinda floundering even before the divorce scandal. This was at a nadir for the Republicans in Illinois because it was after the Ryan/Licenses for Bribes scandal and before Blagojevich. Most of the Republican A-tier had been indicted or had their careers ruined (including Fitzgerald who Ryan was trying to replace) and they were running B-tier candidates.
I mean that’s pretty standard for a McKinsey ghoul:
- Step 1: go to an ivy league college, get a business degree
- Step 2: work for McKinsey for a few years as an associate
- Step 3: get a job at a McKinsey client leapfrogging everyone else into management/c-suite
- Step 4: hire McKinsey to bring their arrogant children into your org and screw things up
Everything about her subsequent career has been going from one upper management/c-suite role in a tech company to another. This is not the resume of a person who should be running a nonprofit that controls the most important open source project on the internet. But beyond that just look at what she’s done in her one month at Mozilla:
-
- Massive round of layoffs
-
- “Focus on {buzzword}” where {buzzword} in this case is AI
That’s straight out of the McKinsey playbook.
Unfortunately Mozilla’s brand new CEO is a McKinsey ghoul: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chamberslaura/
Cope how? I’m not a fan. The worst thing in the world for Lockheed would be if US’s adversaries decided they weren’t going to be designing any new weapons systems. Lockheed runs on fear of what’s next.